↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Salvage Chemotherapy Using a Combination of Fludarabine and Cyclophosphamide for Refractory or Relapsing Indolent and Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphomas
Published in
Leukemia & Lymphoma, July 2009
DOI 10.3109/10428199909093737
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The prognosis of patients with refractory or relapsing non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) after primary therapy is poor and multi-drug salvage treatments are associated with less than 60% response rates, usually of short duration. Here we report the results of a phase II study using a fludarabine-cyclophosphamide (FAMP-Cy) combination as a salvage failure regimen in refractory and relapsing low-grade (6) and intermediate-grade (9) NHL patients. Fifteen patients, who had received up to 4 regimens prior to therapy with FAMP-Cy were treated with fludarabine (25 mg/m2) and cyclophosphamide (300 mg/m2) for 3 consecutive days followed by G-CSF (5 microg/kg). The overall response was 74%, 4 achieving complete responses (CR) and 7 partial responses (PR). All patients with low-grade NHL responded (4 CR, 2 PR); 5 patients with intermediate-grade NHL achieved PR lasting for a median of 5 months. The main toxicity encountered was moderate myelosuppression. Three patients had febrile neutropenia, one had drug-induced fever and a single patient developed severe neurotoxicity. Opportunistic infections due to lymphopenia were not seen. The combination of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide used as a salvage regimen showed an impressive response in a small group of heavily pretreated low-grade NHL patients who had previously received a large number of prior regimens. FAMP-Cy had limited effect in a similar group of intermediate-grade NHL patients. Results with this "failure" regimen are encouraging, however further studies are needed in order to confirm these observations in a larger series of patients.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Researcher 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Professor 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 27%
Neuroscience 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2022.
All research outputs
#15,789,142
of 23,454,152 outputs
Outputs from Leukemia & Lymphoma
#2,407
of 4,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,767
of 111,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Leukemia & Lymphoma
#630
of 686 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,454,152 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,050 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 111,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 686 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.